ecological modernization as a model for regional development: the changing nature and context of the...

Journal of Environmental Policy & PlanningJ. Environ. Policy Plann. 1: 61–75 (1999)

Ecological Modernization as a Model for RegionalDevelopment: The Changing Nature and Context ofthe Eastern Scotland Structural Fund ProgrammeTONY JACKSON* AND PETER ROBERTSCentre for Planning Research, School of Town and Regional Planning, University of Dundee, Perth Road, Dundee,DD1 4HT, UK

ABSTRACT This paper assesses evidence of an ecological modernization approach to the promotion of spatial andregional cohesion through the European Union Structural Funds. After reviewing key concepts of ecological modernizationand illustrating how this has become the European Union’s operational paradigm for implementing sustainable develop-ment, it draws on the example of the current Eastern Scotland Single Programming Document to investigate the processesby which attempts are being made to incorporate this approach into spatial initiatives on a systematic basis.

It is evident that the stage of development reached within UK Single Programming Documents lags behind best practiceMember States in several respects, not least in the establishment of robust environmental review and monitoringprocedures. Analysis of the Eastern Scotland document indicates that UK Structural Fund Programme MonitoringCommittees have yet to identify the appropriate regulatory space for delivery of environmental initiatives compatible with thecurrent European Union Environmental Action Plan. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: ecological modernization; Eastern Scotland Structural Fund Programme; spatial and regional cohesion

Introduction

This paper seeks to identify and analyse theevidence of the adoption of an ecological mod-ernization approach within the mechanismsthrough which the European Union (EU) pro-motes spatial and regional cohesion. This ismost readily identifiable in the instrumentswhich have been developed to deliver coherentpackages of assistance under the EU StructuralFunds: the Single Programming Documents(SPDs). Eastern Scotland has a number of envi-ronmental issues pertinent to this discourse, andoffers an example of current practice in thisrespect. Most of the policy-making agencieswithin this area are themselves advocates ofsustainable development as a means of promot-ing regional development. This stance can beseen both in existing programmes (Jackson &Roberts, 1997) and in current attempts to en-hance the environmental content of future eco-

nomic policies, which includes action toidentify and disseminate good practice (Birley,1998).

We start by reviewing certain key aspects ofthe concept of ecological modernization, andillustrate how this has now become an impor-tant operating paradigm behind the EU’s ap-proach to sustainable development. Theconcept of ecological modernization can beshown to be one of a number of importantinterrelated ideas within the goals of sustainabledevelopment and institutional capacity develop-ment which are being developed to establish amore integrated approach to territorial manage-ment within the EU. In essence, ecologicalmodernization is seen as a means of deliveringthe goals of sustainable development, especiallythrough its application at the regional level.

We then plot the means by which EU envi-ronmental policy has been translated into spatialinitiatives on a systematic basis. This provides anumber of insights into the problems faced bythe current fragile regional discourse coalitionsthat have been established to implement sus-

* Correspondence to: Centre for Planning Research, School ofTown and Regional Planning, University of Dundee, Perth Road,Dundee, DD1 4HT, UK. Tel.: +44 1382 345239; fax: +441382 204234; e-mail: [email protected]

CCC 1523–908X/99/010061–15$17.50Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 10 June 1998Revised 10 December 1998Accepted 28 January 1999

T. Jackson and P. Roberts62

tainable development. Will such coalitions sur-vive any failure of the ecological modernizationapproach to tackle the environmental issues as-sociated with continued economic growth? East-ern Scotland offers a testbed for exploring theability of the new paradigm to deliver a betterand more equitable quality of life.

Ecological modernization andsustainability in the EU

Ecological modernization challenges the con-ventional wisdom that there is a zero-sum trade-off between economic prosperity andenvironmental concern (Weale, 1992). Instead,the proposition made is that achievement of ahigher level of environmental protection is aprecondition of (sustainable) long-term eco-nomic development. However, as Hajer (1996)argues, there is a developmental pathway in theemergence of ecological modernization dis-course—moving from institutional learning, toecological modernization as a technocratic pro-ject, and eventually to a lasting shift in culturalpolitics. We use this wider definition of ecolog-ical modernization in our paper in preference tothe more restricted interpretations advocated byMol (1995) and others. The concept of a devel-opment pathway allows us to utilize a modelwhich reflects the full range of economic, socialand environmental conditions evident in thevarious regions of the EU.

Viewing ecological modernization initially asinstitutional learning suggests that the ecologi-cal crisis is primarily a conceptual problem forpolicy-makers, seeking to find ways in which toincorporate environmental concerns into theirareas of responsibility (Jackson & Roberts,1997). Generally in the UK and Western Eu-rope the first stage of this pathway has beenacknowledged and partly delivered, althoughmuch remains to be done both in the EU and inthose states currently seeking membership(Roberts, 1997). The economies of some exist-ing members are now entering the second stage,in which ecological modernization is viewed asa technocratic project. This application of eco-logical modernization can be seen as an ‘envi-

ronment-as-technology’ discourse coalitionemerging from interactions between populartendencies and technological interests in thepolitical debates over the environment withinindustrialized market economies. As Jachten-fuchs & Huber (1993) have illustrated, environ-mental policy concerns initially championed byradical green movements have largely been sub-sumed over the past decade into EU pro-grammes designed to maintain the momentumof integration. A similar process can be dis-cerned in the development of environmentalmanagement standards within the EU (Franke &Waetzold, 1996).

More importantly, it is at the third stage—ecological modernization as cultural politics—that the agenda chosen by policy-makers offersthe means to select suitable areas of debate.Public discussions can be channelled in wayswhich can help to pre-determine appropriatesocietal solutions, as evinced by the creation ofsustainability forums and Local Agenda 21 pro-grammes. This process of participation and thetesting of alternatives is reflected in the growingsophistication and coverage of the debate in theEU on the achievement of environmental goalsthrough a range of other policy instruments.

Whatever the primary motivation, the devel-opment of this form of environmental thinkingis evident from the mid-1980s. Zero-sum argu-ments rejecting economic growth in favour ofconservation of the environment began to bereplaced by positive-sum assessments of theneed for sustainable growth to meet economicand social, as well as environmental, objectives.Some of the key documents in this process werethe Brundtland Report (World Commission onEnvironment and Development, 1987), theWorld Bank Report on Development and theEnvironment (World Bank, 1992), subsequentoutput from the UN Conference on Environ-ment and Development, and the EU Fifth Envi-ronmental Action Plan (Commission of theEuropean Communities, 1992). A critique of theintellectual rationalization under-pinning thecreation of these developments is offered byJacobs (1991), while von Weizsaecker et al.(1997) offer a practical set of examples thatillustrate the implications. Furthermore,Gouldson & Murphy (1998) point to the impor-

Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 1: 61–75 (1999)

Ecological Modernization as a Model for Regional Development 63

tant role played by regulation, especiallythrough policy and legislative regimes that arecommon throughout the EU, in ensuring theadoption of the ecological modernizationapproach.

The widespread adoption of the concept ofsustainability has succeeded in moving the envi-ronmental debate away from partial equilibriumconcerns about static inefficiency losses andappropriate regulatory, technical and fiscal in-struments of control, which in themselves werereflective of a technological approach to envi-ronmental issues. Given an increasing awarenessof limits to growth (compare Meadows et al.,1972 with Meadows et al., 1992), attention hasnow turned to steady-state resource dynamicsand the means of attaining optimal sustainablegrowth paths. The World Conservation Uniondefinition of sustainability is currently seen asan operational equivalent to the Brundtlandconcern with inter-generational equity of access:

‘sustainable development means improving thequality of life while living within the carryingcapacity of supporting ecosystems’ (World Con-servation Union, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Worldwide Fund for Nature, 1991, p.5).

The allocative implications of such inter-gen-erational dynamics are more restrictive than isgenerally supposed, given the further sustain-ability constraints imposed by Article 130r ofthe Treaty of Union, which requires that EUpolicy on the environment shall aim at a highlevel of protection and:

‘be based on the precautionary principle and onthe principles that preventative action should betaken, that environmental damage should as apriority be rectified at source, and that the pol-luter should pay’ (Treaty of European Union, TitleXVI: Environment).

Nevertheless, this process of institutionallearning, at least in the case of the EU’s policymechanisms, has been subject to a number ofdelays and disruptions. These difficulties havetheir origins in the multitude of roles that theEU attempts to perform. Of particular impor-tance in the context of this paper is the disloca-tion that has existed between policies for

economic growth and for environmental en-hancement (Roberts, 1996). Many of the tradi-tional policy objectives of the EU have beenprincipally concerned with the promotion ofeconomic growth, and it is only recently thatenvironmental concerns have been promotedalongside this traditional agenda. As will beseen below, the latest EU Environmental ActionPlan (EAP) has been marked by a change instance and an improvement in the means for thesimultaneous implementation of economic andenvironmental programmes.

The EU Environmental Action Plans(EAPs)

The fifth EAP (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, 1992), which runs from 1993 to2000, is entitled ‘Towards Sustainability’. Bothin the objectives it supports and in the modes ofdelivery it advocates it is strongly coloured bythe ecological modernization paradigm. Ac-knowledging the continued need for economicdevelopment, it accepts as a primary EU objec-tive the creation of conditions for a strong,innovative EU industrial sector. Long-termstrategies to promote economic competitivenesswithin world markets for EU producers aresupported, and the plan envisages the creationof conditions which will allow the EU industrialsector to use its expertise in environmental tech-nology and management practice to realizethese. In contrast to the prescriptive, top–down, approach towards industry adopted byprevious plans, realization of this plan rests onan acceptance that environmental quality andeconomic growth are mutually dependent, andreliant on a partnership approach between theprincipal actors:

‘Under this programme the dual approach of highenvironmental standards combined with positiveincentives to even better performance should beapplied in a co-ordinated manner to the differentpoints in the ‘‘research-process-production-market-ing-use-disposal’’ chain’ (Commission of the Eu-ropean Communities, 1992, p. 28).

Applying the terminology of the Commis-sion, environmental measures meeting these re-



quirements are seen as consisting of a mixture ofvertical initiatives, which focus on specific sec-toral projects to deliver environmental improve-ments at all spatial levels, and horizontalinitiatives, that bring together the separate ele-ments of all EU programmes at a given spatiallevel. Given the consensual approach advocatedby the EAP and the limited funds available forspecific environmental initiatives, horizontal mea-sures—especially at regional level—are clearlyof great importance in delivering the objectivesof the current EAP.

The horizontal approach reflects the realitythat many economic activities and most citizenshave a close association with individual places.Public and private organizations, together withindividual citizens, often hold strong viewsabout the qualities of a place and frequently doall they can to ensure that territorial quality isnot diminished (Roberts, 1995; Cappellin,1998).

These horizontal environmental measures firstcame to prominence with the fourth EAP(1988–1992). The Single European Act (SEA)established environmental protection as an obli-gatory component of all EU policies. For thestructural programmes in agriculture, regionaland social development (EAGGF, ERDF, ESF,respectively), this was to be realized by a pro-cess termed ‘external integration’ of each initia-tive with EU environmental policies (as distinctfrom the ‘internal integration’ expected of EUenvironmental policies themselves).

Such requirements encouraged the evolutionof disbursement arrangements for these tradi-tional funds into the current partnership-basedmanaged programmes, which now deliver pre-dominantly soft forms of assistance such asbusiness support, training and education, ratherthan infrastructural investments. However, asSeamark (1996) has demonstrated, many of theenvironmental appraisals conducted as part ofthe process of preparing and approving the1994–1996 round of Structural Fund pro-grammes were lacking in consistency, detail andan explicit means for the implementation ofenvironmental objectives. The new pro-grammes, for the period 1997–1999, providedan opportunity to improve on this somewhatdismal performance.

Regional assistance deliveredthrough the EU Structural Funds

The current programme for the Structural Fundswas agreed in 1993, and runs from 1994 to1999. There are six specific categories of assis-tance, grouped under five objectives, three ofwhich (Objectives 1, 2 and 5b) are purely spa-tial in nature and require the establishment ofprogrammes of regional assistance. These pro-grammes are drafted and delivered on a partner-ship basis between the Commission and aconsortium of regional representatives withinMember States led by an implementing bodyrepresenting the national government.

The partnership consists of representativesfrom regionally-based bodies with developmentresponsibilities for the area, including local gov-ernment, enterprise and training agencies, envi-ronmental agencies, further and highereducation and the voluntary sector. These part-ners draw on local and national funding sourcesin addition to those available through the pro-gramme to put together proposals and makebids for funding.

The 1993 Regulations established a SingleProgramming Document (SPD), which is anoperational programme for delivering structuralassistance to an area. The SPD is based on aregional development plan, which sets out therationale behind the structural programme ofregional assistance. The SPD allows this to belinked directly to a set of priorities identified forrealizing the plan, and a set of measures formeeting each of these priorities. In this way, theprogramme establishes the rules for a biddingprocess to fund proposals designed to realizethe plan.

Once approved by the Commission, the im-plementation and management of an SPD be-comes the responsibility of the partnership. Themain vehicle for discharging these functions isthe Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC),which is made up of representatives of thepartners. The task of the PMC is to review andmaintain the strategic focus of the programme.A Secretariat serves the PMC and manages theprogramme on a day-to-day basis. In Scotlandthis role is performed by the ProgrammeExecutive.



Within a UK context, these planning andmanagement processes are important for threedistinct reasons. First, they provide an opera-tional basis for the exercise of regional assis-tance under a system which (if the territorialexecutives for Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland are discounted) has experienced noother significant form of coherent regional plan-ning for many years. Roberts & Hart (1996)regard the EU regional programmes of structuralassistance as

‘one of the factors which have helped to stimulatea resurgence of regional planning in the UK’ (p.3).

The increasing need for inputs at a regionallevel undoubtedly contributed to the decision tocreate Government Offices for the Englishregions.

Second, the EU regional programmes alsooffer an opportunity not otherwise available inthe UK to test the viability of delivering on anintegrated spatial basis a set of environmentmeasures designed to implement sustainable de-velopment at a strategic level. The fifth EAPspecifically identifies actors and activities thatdeplete resources and produce other adverseenvironmental impacts. It also suggests thatthese target groups—a term derived from theDutch National Environmental Policy Plan(Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning andEnvironment of the Netherlands, 1994)—canbe drawn into cooperative plans delivered togreatest effect at a strategic level.

Third, these environmental measures can belinked directly to economic and social measuresthrough the preparation of a comprehensive andintegrated regional programme that reflects thefull range of sustainable development character-istics. If the limited funding available throughthe Community Financial Initiative for the Envi-ronment (LIFE) is discounted, then for memberstates ineligible to draw on the Cohesion Fundthe Structural Funds provide the principal meansby which the objectives of the fifth EAP can beimplemented.

Indeed, the fifth EAP sees reliance on deliv-ery of much of its programme via the StructuralFunds as a means of inducing changes on thepart of regional planners and developers towards

the use of environmental resources, so thatstructural development programmes are put to-gether in ways which incorporate ecologicalmodernization as the basis for continued socio-economic improvement. As a former Director-General of Directorate XI has observed,underlying the strategy of the fifth EAP is theassumption that the general objective of sustain-able development can only be achieved througha joint effort by all parties in the form of apartnership (Brinkhorst & Klatte, 1993, p. 73). Ithas also been suggested that the approach cur-rently being pursued reflects a desire to identifythe appropriate regulatory space for delivery ofenvironmental initiatives (Hanf, 1996).

Although the fifth EAP acknowledges thatthe realization of long-term goals requires short-to medium-term programmes capable of beingmonitored and evaluated, it studiously avoidsidentifying a comprehensive list of measures. Inpart, this is a reaction against the shopping listapproaches characteristic of previous EAPs. It isalso a conscious reflection of a desire to facili-tate rather than control the process of adapta-tion required, because:

‘it is not feasible to adopt a Directive or Regula-tion which says ‘‘Thou shalt act in a sustainablemanner’’ ’ (Commission of the European Commu-nities, 1992, p. 64).

As a consequence, the emphasis has switchedfrom top–down regulation to promotion ofmeasures at an appropriate level and throughcooperative actions to deliver environmental ini-tiatives as part of other EU programmes. Theseinclude, apart from the structural programmes,various market-based initiatives which seek tointernalize environmental externalities. Thisarm’s-length approach—despite the enhancedpowers acquired over environmental policy bythe EU following the Single European Act andTreaty of Union—also reflects the political re-alities imposed on the EU by high levels ofunemployment and slow economic growth.

The Eastern Scotland Programme(ESP)

An examination of the environmental input in arecent SPD provides some insight into the ef-



fectiveness of the Structural Funds as a mecha-nism for re-ordering regulatory space in orderto deliver the fifth EAP and promote ecologicalmodernization. Objective 2 programmes run forhalf of the full period covered by the currentEU Structural Funds programme, allowing someflexibility within the programme under this ob-jective. The ESP has now embarked on a sec-ond SPD (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, 1997), covering the period1997–1999, having been advised in January1996 that the status of the area would bemaintained for the remainder of the programmeperiod.

The area covered by the ESP is not territori-ally contiguous. It consists of parts of fourformer regions (Central, Fife, Lothians andTayside), and includes all of seven travel-to-work-areas (Arbroath, Alloa, Bathgate, Dundee,Dunfermline, Falkirk, Kirkcaldy) plus parts oftwo others (Edinburgh and Stirling). For thepurposes of EU structural assistance under Ob-jective 2, which focuses on the conversion ofregions with communities seriously affected byindustrial decline, the predominant feature link-ing these communities located along the Tayand Forth estuaries is a chronic loss of employ-ment in manufacturing.

This part of Eastern Scotland suffers fromrates of unemployment significantly higher thanthe Scottish average (although some distortionof the statistical base is created by the exclu-sion of most of the City of Edinburgh, thelargest community in the catchment area). Itslabour force possesses a lower than averagelevel of skills, a low level of self-employment,and lower than average business birth rates.Together these are classic symptoms of areasoverly dependent on traditional sources of man-ufacturing employment. Although manufactur-ing employment in this area fell by just over aquarter between 1984 and 1993, it still ac-counts for 22% of the workforce, well abovethe Scottish average (16%).

The regional and social conversion plan forsuch an area is intended to establish a frame-work to generate additional sources of employ-ment compatible with its socio-economic andenvironmental requirements. Additional severelocal job losses created by abandonment of

deep-mined coal and the run-down of the navaldockyards have attracted separate RECHARand RENAVAL programmes of assistance forthe affected communities.

The ESP area already has a high concentra-tion of electronics and instrument engineering,located mainly in its two new towns: Glen-rothes (in the Kirkcaldy travel-to-work-area)and Livingston (in the Bathgate travel-to-work-area), and to a lesser extent in the Dunfermlineand Dundee travel-to-work-areas. Buoyant de-mand for electronics and steadily rising em-ployment in this sector in recent decades has,however, not proved sufficient to offset largejob losses in traditional manufacturing activities.

Aside from its electronics sector, the areashows other potential for technologically-driven growth. It is served by seven universities,four major research institutes, and 15 furthereducation colleges. Some 700 of the 2500 Scot-tish companies (28%) identified in a recentsurvey as having research and development orproduct development activity (Commission ofthe European Communities, 1997, p. 34) arelocated in the ESP area. Offsetting weaknessesinclude a low research and development in-volvement by the private sector, limited inte-gration between further and higher educationand business, and a poor rate of high-techbusiness start-ups.

Environmental inputs in the ESPStrategic Plan

The SPD for the area identifies four strategicpriorities in its regional regeneration strategy:

– development of a dynamic indigenous SMEbase;

– tourism;– locally-based initiatives; and– technology and innovation.

Locally-based initiatives are community schemesdesigned to tackle socio-economic deprivation,while the other three priorities focus on aspectsof indigenous business growth, identifying twosectors—tourism and technological innova-tion—as offering scope for assisteddevelopment.



In addition to these vertical priorities, any SPDis required to address common horizontal priori-ties laid down for all the Structural Funds,which are currently grouped under the headingsof:

– the environment;– equal opportunities; and– human resource development.

It is possible to regard these horizontal objec-tives, taken together, as fulfilling the intra- andinter-generational equity and environmental re-quirements of sustainable development, al-though in practice they are regarded as settingseparate horizontal requirements for the plan.The ESP document contains a total of 12 mea-sures aimed at meeting its four strategic priori-ties (see key to Table 2). Some of thesemeasures also directly address at least two of thehorizontal priorities. Promoting growth of smalland medium-sized enterprises (Priority 1) andemphasizing community economic developmentunder local initiatives (Priority 3) are seen ascontributing towards realization of equal oppor-tunities, while each of the priorities has at-tached to it a human resource developmenttraining measure.

In contrast, although efforts to increase thetechnological capacity of SMEs might be seenas providing opportunities for ecological mod-ernization, the SPD itself admits that despitethe Commission’s view that the environmentaldimension should be treated at both the hori-zontal and vertical level, the document

‘does not specifically address the environment andsustainable development at a vertical level’ (Com-mission of the European Communities, 1997, p.78).

The justification offered for this omission isthat environmental issues are sufficiently incor-porated in the programme through the horizon-tal linkages included in all the measures andthrough the Partnership’s management andmonitoring structures, which will promotesustainability.

What this means in practice is that the SPDincludes only a token quantification of environ-mental outputs and impacts. Table 1 indicatesthat amongst the 85 specific priority targets set

for the programme—which cover the economicimpact, intermediate outputs and physical activ-ity to be generated by each measure—there areonly four environmental ones. These cover 20ISO 14001 and 10 EMAS registrations (whichare only recorded as targets in the individualmeasures and do not figure in the aggregatedpriority targets), the reclamation of 45 ha ofderelict and contaminated land, and environ-mental improvements to 50 ha of land.

The lack of more specific environmentaltargeting within this SPD is likely to frustrateattempts to promote the desired pro-active rela-tionship between economic development and

Table 1. Targets set for the Eastern Scotland SPD, 1997–1999 (Source: Commission of the European Communities,1997)

Type of target No. of targets under eachprioritya

1 2 3 4

Economic impactEmployment 6 6 5 6Output 3 3 3Income 1 1

Intermediate outputBusinesses 1 1Products/processes 21

1MarketsTrainees 13

1Skills and qualifications1Reduced unemployment

Environmental standards 2b

Visitors 4

Physical activitiesFinancial assistance 1Counselling 1Enquiries 1Premises 2 2 5Sites 1Roads 2Attractions 2Community initiatives 1Contaminated/derelict land 1Environmental improve- 1ments

344Training/qualificationsTraining facilities 2Marketing 1Educational links

Total 20192125

Environmental targets in italics.a 1. SME support; 2. Tourism; 3. Local Initiatives; 4. Technol-ogy and innovation.b Identified as target under a specific measure but not inoverall summary of targets under priorities.



environmental protection advocated by ecologi-cal modernization. In their comparative critiqueof British and Dutch approaches to the use ofindustrial environmental regulation, Gouldson &Murphy (1998) provide cogent arguments infavour of setting clear limits to programmes ofeconomic development through the use of acomprehensive framework of environmentalstandards and targets capable of addressing thecumulative impact of SMEs on a region:

‘The presence of a comprehensive framework oftargets, of a credible system of monitoring and ofa transparent system of performance measures canenhance the ability of government and industry toexplore innovative ways of securing environmentalimprovement as the various stakeholders can com-pare the results of such a process with the relevanttargets’ (Gouldson & Murphy, 1998, p. 137).

The British development policy framework,of which the Eastern Scotland SPD is a typicalexample, at present lacks the capacity for for-mulating strategic environmental policy planswhich complement the strategic land use plan-ning system. In contrast the Dutch NationalEnvironmental Policy Plans (NEPPs), as well asproviding strategic guidance, set the groundrules for generating appropriate inputs by em-phasizing consensus and dialogue with stake-holders both sectorally and spatially in agreeingtargets and the means of implementing these.

It is premature to pass judgement on theeffectiveness of the current UK approach to-wards integrating the fifth EAP into the presentround of regional assistance. Nevertheless, theESP document offers some pointers which sug-gest that the interpretation given to sustainabledevelopment by UK partnerships is in itselfonly partly compatible with the paradigm ofecological modernization, and more limited inscope than the approach taken in some com-parable Member States. This is evident, forexample, in the justification offered for theapproach taken by the SPD to what is termed‘environmental’ sustainability:

‘Respect for the environment and the extent towhich the project promotes environmental sustain-ability will be key elements of the project selec-tion criteria for each and every measure. Key tothe new environmental impetus for the SPD

1997–1999 in promoting greater awareness of theenvironment, ensuring compliance with nationaland EU legislation and promoting environmentalsustainability will be the active participation of thetwo competent environmental authorities, ie Scot-tish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environ-mental Protection Agency at all levels of themanagement and implementation of the new SPD’(Commission of the European Communities, 1997,p. 78).

This passage appears to view the issue largely asa matter of applying a traditional watching brieftowards environmental protection, rather thanthe active promotion of the full ecological mod-ernization approach. Scottish Natural Heritagehas yet to development its interests in environ-mental protection beyond the rural sector. TheScottish Environmental Protection Agency atpresent lacks a remit to assume a strategic rolein spatial economic development. Taken to-gether, this means that the policy framework tointegrate the roles of these agencies into re-gional development programmes is lacking.

The current state of environmentalappraisal in the ESP SPD

Table 2 reproduces the matrix used by the ESPSPD to illustrate how environmental concernsare currently taken into account within thedocument. This entails use of a Scottish NaturalHeritage (SNH) checklist created for strategicenvironmental assessment of European Struc-tural Fund Programmes, which provides the solemeans of environmental appraisal offered of theprogramme’s proposals. The checklist is furtherconfirmation that the implications of strategicplanning and assessment for sustainability havenot been fully absorbed. For example, the rowdealing with ‘protection of the global atmo-sphere’ suggests that despite an outlay which isdesigned to make an appreciable impact onlocal activity, none of the measures should pro-duce a detrimental environmental effect of anysignificance.

Reference to the environmental review whichprecedes Table 2 reveals that the ESP area hasfour coal-fired power stations and two majorpetrochemical sites. Air-borne emissions fromthese sources are already a serious problem:


EcologicalM

odernizationas

aM

odelfor

Regional

Development

69

Copyright

©1999

JohnW

iley&

Sons,Ltd.

J.Environ.

PolicyPlann.

1:61

–75

(1999)

Table 2. Matrix used for appraisal criteria for programme measures in the ESP SPD, 1997–1999 (Source: Commission of the European Communities, 1997)

Appraisal criteria Priority measure*

2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.31.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

·· ·· ·· ·· ·· +·· ··+ ··+··Minimize use of non-renewable resources·· ·· ·· ·· ·· + ·· ··Environmentally-sound use and management of hazardous/polluting substances and wastes ·· + ·· ···· ·· ·· ·· ·· +?·· ···· ····Use renewable resources within limits of capacity for regeneration ··

+?Maintain and improve quality of wildlife, habitats and landscapes ·· +/−? ·· ·· ·· ·· ·· ···· ·· ··+?Maintain and improve quality of soils and water resources ·· −? ·· + ·· ·· ·· ···· ·· ··

·· +/−? ·· ·· ·· ··+? ·· ········Maintain and improve quality of historic and cultural resources·· + ·· + ·· + ·· +? ·· ···· ··Maintain and improve local environmental quality

·· ·· ·· + ·· +?·· ··Protection of global atmosphere ··········Develop environmental awareness, education and training ·· +? +? ·· + + ·· +·· + +?··Promote public participation in decisions involving sustainable development ·· ·· ·· + ·· ·· ·· ···· ·· ··

·· ·· ·· + ·· +·· ···· ··+··Overall assessment

+, Potential for significant beneficial impact.−, Potential for significant adverse impact.··, No relationship or significant impact.?, Likelihood of beneficial or adverse impact uncertain.+/−?, Impact direction uncertain.* Priority measures:

1.1 Support for business start-ups.1.2 Support for small and medium-size enterprise (SME) growth and development.1.3 Assisting HRD for SMEs and employment growth areas.1.4 Investments in productive facilities.

2.1 Support of SMEs in tourism and cultural industries.2.2 Support for strategic tourism development.2.3 Promotion of targeted tourism skills development and employment support.

3.1 Community economic development (ERDF).3.2 Community economic development (ESF).

4.1 Increasing technological capacity of SMEs.4.2 Provision of facilities to strengthen local R&D, technology and transfer, and HRD systems for SMEs.4.3 Developing skills in technology and innovation geared to needs of SMEs.


‘In 1989, the highest levels of sulphur dioxideemissions in Scotland were recorded within theprogramme area, with over 20,000 tonnes of SO2

emitted in an 800 km2 area between Stirling andDunfermline’ (Commission of the European Com-munities, 1997, p. 50).

The environmental review goes on to observethat in Edinburgh in 1994 the proposed UKNational Air Quality Strategy standard for sul-phur dioxide was exceeded on 30 occasions.This national standard reflects the cut in emis-sions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxidesagreed by the UK Government in 1994 inresponse to the 1988 EU Large CombustionPlants Directive. It is far less stringent than theEC acidification proposals currently under con-sideration, which aim to cut acid gas emissionsin the EU by 80% by 2010. The ElectricityAssociation has been quoted as saying thatthese proposals would limit fossil-fuel electricitygeneration for the UK ‘to the single option ofgas-fired power stations with additional emis-sion controls’, that it would force the closure ofall coal-fired stations, and that other industriescovered by the directive, such as steel andchemicals, ‘may relocate operations abroadrather than upgrade existing plants’ (SundayTimes, 1997, p. 22).

The matter of what is an appropriate level ofemissions for such plants may not be for theSPD to determine, but the SPD seems obliviousof the implications of these issues for its targets,and appears to regard its own demands forenergy as having no adverse consequencesworth noting under this heading. By contrast,the Dutch approach (Ministry of Housing,Physical Planning and Environment of theNetherlands, 1988, 1994) is to encourage thesetting of targets for reduction of emissionsfrom power stations and other large plantsthrough joint negotiations on a partnership ba-sis between representatives of industry and theplanning and development authorities at an ap-propriate spatial level, leaving it to local initia-tives to come up with proposals whichcontribute to the targets.

The coal-fired power stations in the area alsopose a major problem in disposing of fly ash,much of which is currently dumped into slurrylagoons in the Forth estuary. Technology is

available from establishments located within theESP area to turn such waste into inputs forvarious other processes that could reduce de-mands on raw materials. These processing op-portunities provide good examples of thesystems approach towards the management ofenvironmental impacts, which includes the clos-ing of material cycles advocated by supportersof the industrial ecology mode of ecologicalmodernization (Allenby & Richards, 1994; Ayres& Ayres, 1996). Specific proposals have recentlybeen made for the Grangemouth petrochemicalcomplex to have a gas-fired combined heat andpower plant and for a biomass power station toopen at Westfield near Kirkcaldy, designed toburn chicken waste.

It is, therefore, surprising that the SPD makeslittle effort to consider the energy efficiencyaspects of its programme, how these might bemet in environmentally-sustainable fashion, andhow such initiatives could generate further busi-ness elsewhere. A broader interpretation of thePartnership’s remit to include ecological mod-ernization would incorporate at regional levelthe implications of strategic decision-makingprocesses affecting the composition and cost ofScottish energy supplies, and identify ways ofanticipating and planning for the impact of EUDirectives on this sector.

Other major issues are also ignored. Most ofthe appraisal criteria listed in the matrix ofTable 2 involves the application of environmen-tal quality indicators as distinct from indicatorsof sustainability (Touche Ross, 1994, 1995).The selection strongly reflects the rural priori-ties of SNH, rather than the environmentalproblems afflicting many of these industrialcommunities. For example, the matrix fails toreveal the impact of the plan on the seriouscongestion and pollution created by ongoingroad traffic growth in the area. The absence ofan integrated transport programme for the Eastof Scotland, bisected as it is by two majorestuaries, is a major constraint on sustainabledevelopment which is ignored by the SPD. It isunlikely that fulfilment of the targets within theSPD will ease this problem. Growing trafficcongestion and pollution may instead act as aserious constraint on delivery of some of themeasures in certain locations.



Similarly, the ESP area has serious trade anddomestic effluent discharge problems arisingboth from abandoned mines, and the generallack of secondary treatment for most sewagedischarges to sea. Commitment to meeting EUstandards is likely to result in significant in-creases in water charges to local businesses,reducing their competitiveness, unless appropri-ate measures to limit discharges can be incorpo-rated within any regeneration strategy.

As already suggested, sustainability can beseen as encompassing all three of the horizontalpriorities: initiatives which simultaneously pro-mote improvements in environmental qualityand in socio-economic conditions within thearea. This requires a far more comprehensiveand integrated attitude towards sustainable de-velopment than the application of a checklistdesigned to see whether a programme chosenon other grounds complies with certain environ-mental precepts. Such a systematic strategicapproach towards environmental assessment isadvocated in the European Sustainable CitiesReport (Commission of the European Commu-nities, 1996), which stresses the importance ofviewing urban communities as complex ecosys-tems, and in the literature that advocates theadoption of territorial integration in regionalplanning (Roberts, 1996).

Proposals for enhancingenvironmental appraisal in the ESPSPD

Some recognition of the shortcomings of theapproach currently adopted by the Partnershipis evident from a careful reading of the SPD.The current EU Structural Funds programmeplaces particular emphasis on appraisal proce-dures (Bachtler & Michie, 1995). These are seenas consisting of a three-stage process, coveringprior appraisal of proposals, monitoring andinterim assessment of delivery, and subsequentevaluation of impact. The present regulationsrequire all SPDs to include:

– an appraisal of the current environmentalsituation;

– an assessment of the impact on the environ-ment caused by the plan; and

– the designation of an environmental author-ity for the region.

In reviewing the lessons learned from theprevious round, the current SPD acknowledgesthe need to improve its approach towards ap-praisal of environmental issues. It reveals that astudy of environmental aspects of the previousround concluded that it lacked ‘a clear focus forwhat was required in terms of project develop-ment’ (Commission of the European Communi-ties, 1997, p. 89) to deliver the sustainabilityrequirements expected by the Commission. Thedocument also lists the following issues whichneed to be given a more strategic consideration:

– transport planning;– energy efficiency;– forestry and biomass;– waste minimization;– brownfield sites; and– public awareness and training in environ-

mental skills.

The current SPD undertakes to address theseissues through further work, which will focuson:

– a more comprehensive environmental base-line review of the ESP area;

– revision of its project appraisal system toinclude environmental assessments at anearly stage;

– administrative changes to include further en-vironmental expertise within the partnership;

– development and promotion of good prac-tice environmental guides for partners, pluspromotion of eco-business; and

– the development of monitoring criteria toassess the environmental content of theProgramme.

These are welcome improvements which ac-knowledge the reservations expressed byBachtler & Michie (1995) about the capacity ofregional partnerships to incorporate effectiveenvironmental appraisals of their impacts in ac-cordance with the Structural Fund regulations.Nevertheless, they do not wholly address thelack of a clear strategic appreciation of the



meaning and requirements of planning and man-aging sustainable development, a skill which ismore evident within the planning processes ofFife Council (Fife Council, 1996, 1997; Jackson& Roberts, 1997). The appointment in 1995 ofFife Council as the lead partner and the mergingof the four former sub-regional programmes intoa single Programme Executive should assist inthis learning process, as will the addition of theScottish Environmental Protection Agency tothe Partnership. Further progress is still requiredon the establishment of a clearer and morecomprehensive set of policy development crite-ria in order to ensure the full adoption of theecological modernization approach, a require-ment which has now been acknowledged (Bir-ley, 1998).

Conclusions

In attempting to assess the progress being madein delivering ecological modernization viaStructural Fund regional partnerships, the con-clusions to be drawn from an examination of theESP SPD support the argument by Hanf (1996)about the need for a re-ordering of regulatoryspace for delivering environmental initiatives.Hanf suggests that EU environmental policy isprompting the creation of a new equilibrium ofregulatory space governing the relations be-tween government and economic actors, betterable to promote the objectives of ecologicalmodernization.

Such a re-ordering is further advanced insome other EU Member States than it is in theUK. Current governmental arrangements withinthe UK do not at present provide an adequatebasis on which to establish the strategic regionalframework necessary for the creation and devel-opment of a sustainable development planningframework. The regional partnerships createdfor EU structural assistance, which at presentcover 85% of the Scottish population, offer avehicle for testing a possible framework. Therecent position paper drafted by Convention ofScottish Local Authorities on the future of theStructural Funds after 1999 recognizes this point(Convention of Scottish Local Authorities,1997). It argues that the principles of sustain-

ability should be fully incorporated into the EUStructural Funds programme, and that supportshould only be given to:

‘programmes and projects which:

– maintain the overall quality of life;– maintain continuing access to natural resources;– avoid lasting environmental damage;– meet the needs of the present without compro-

mising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs.

In particular, all programmes should be subject toa full sustainable development assessment of theirpolicy objectives and all projects subject to arigorous environmental impact assessment’ (p. 14).

Amongst the local authority partners withinthe ESP area, considerable progress has alreadybeen made in designing, developing, deliveringand measuring the impact of sustainability ini-tiatives. Jackson & Roberts (1997) demonstratefor one of these councils how the implementa-tion of sustainability policies has entailedchanges to traditional management structures inlocal government, the use of environmentalmanagement systems, and the development ofperformance measures in the form of sustainabil-ity indicators. Each of the ESP area local au-thorities has a strong commitment to LocalAgenda 21 (LA21). Part of this involves theestablishment of LA21 forums, providing localcommunity interests with the means to share indeveloping approaches to sustainability thatmesh with the fifth EU EAP. Here the emphasisis on the participatory elements of sustainabil-ity—‘consensus building, empowerment andstrategic management’ (Bruder, 1997, p. 28)—asa counter-balance to the policy-oriented func-tional systems of management and monitoringrequired in local authority programmes.

A similar need is recognized in England,where the regional framework is less well-devel-oped. In response to the discussion paper issuedby the Department of the Environment, Trans-port and the Regions on the proposed creationof regional development agencies for the En-glish regions, the Town and Country PlanningAssociation has responded by urging that thesebodies be used to ensure sustainable regionalplanning and development:



‘The need for an environmentally driven sustain-able approach to regional development is espe-cially important in the older industrial regionswhere dereliction and other forms of environmen-tal degradation act as a major impediment toeconomic and social development. In addition, thedesirability of working with the needs of theenvironment in mind is recognised as coincidentwith the maximisation of economic potential; themarket for environmental goods and services isgrowing rapidly and outstrips most other markets’(Town and Country Planning Association, 1997,pp. 6–7).

Roberts & Chan (1997) illustrate how localauthority initiatives such as those pursued bythe Association of Greater Manchester Authori-ties can provide a model for delivering strategiesof sustainable development based on ecologicalmodernization. They argue strongly for the de-velopment and monitoring of long-term strate-gies for sustainable development on a spatialand cross-sectoral basis, involving a partnershipapproach which sets environmental targets andsupports local and regional initiatives to meetthese. The present Dutch approach goes muchfurther towards meeting many of these require-ments. It seeks to establish at appropriate levelsa comprehensive set of voluntary partnershipsworking together to deliver programmes capa-ble of meeting specific environmental targets:

‘The final responsibility for implementing policylies with the target groups. In an ideal situationthe target groups would modify their behaviour soas to realise sustainable develop-ment . . . Implementation will be pursued and in-struments chosen so as to achieve a bettercoincidence of collective and individual inter-ests . . . The scope given to target groups,provinces and municipalities and intermediary or-ganisations, to make their own choices can beenlarged, within a clear framework’ (Ministry ofHousing, Physical Planning and Environment ofthe Netherlands, 1994, p. 42).

The same source goes on to state that thetargets set for such groups are fixed within anopen planning process in consultation with eachgroup, so as to meet the overall objectives ofthe plan. The target groups accept responsibilityfor their own targets and determine by them-selves how they will achieve these. The fifth

EAP has clearly been based on a belief that theDutch approach is the most likely to deliverecological modernization.

Roberts (1994) suggests that three themes arelikely to dominate the agenda in implementingsustainable development at a regional level:

– ‘the search for forms of economic organisationthat respect the environment and minimise thenegative environmental consequences ofdevelopment;

– the desirability of moving towards spatial formsand modes of social organisation that minimisethe excessive use of resources and maximiseenvironmental benefits;

– the desirability of meshing together sectoral andspatial elements to ensure the environmentallyresponsible and balanced planning and develop-ment of regions’ (p. 781).

Despite evidence from other member statesthat the EU Structural Funds policy offers anopportunity of fulfilling at least part of thisagenda, the example of the Eastern ScotlandProgramme illustrates that current UK pro-grammes have as yet made only limited progressin this respect. Failure to deliver a more focusedand targeted set of strategic environmental ini-tiatives along with appropriate standards, targetsand performance measures in future SPDs willhinder progress towards the achievement ofthe first stage of ecological modernization, andmay give rise to a suspicion that aspirationsto further progress are essentially a smokescreento camouflage the growing environmental dam-age technology is imposing on society (Beck,1995).

Acknowledgements

The helpful comments of two anonymous refer-ees are acknowledged. The usual disclaimersapply.

References

Allenby, B.R. and Richards, D.J. (eds.) (1994) TheGreening of Industrial Ecosystems. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.



Ayres, R.U. and Ayres, L.W. (1996) Industrial Ecology:Towards Closing the Material Cycle. Cheltenham: Ed-ward Elgar.

Bachtler, J. and Michie, R. (1995) A new era in EUregional policy evaluation? The appraisal of thestructural funds. Regional Studies, 29: 745–752.

Beck, U. (1995) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Birley, T. (1998) The Sustainable Development Project:Consultation Report. Dunfermline, East of ScotlandEuropean Partnership.

Brinkhorst, L.J. and Klatte, E.R. (1993) EC environ-mental policy: evolution and perspective. In: Inter-national Environmental Policy (edited by G.Spaargaren). The Hague: Uds.

Bruder, N. (1997) Lessons from environmental audit-ing for the development of local environmentalpolicy. In: Evaluation of Local Environmental Policy(edited by S.M. Farthing). Aldershot: Avebury.

Cappellin, R. (1998) The Enlargement of the EuropeanUnion and the Future of the European National RegionalPolicies. Paper presented at the 18th Conference ofEurope of the Regions, Copenhagen, August.

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (1997) Fu-ture of the Structural Funds Interim Position Paper. Edin-burgh: COSLA.

Commission of the European Communities (1992)Towards Sustainability: A European Commission Pro-gramme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environ-ment. Luxembourg: CEC.

Commission of the European Communities (1996)European Sustainable Cities—Report of the Expert Groupon the Urban Environment. Luxembourg: CEC.

Commission of the European Communities (1997)Eastern Scotland Single Programming Document 1997–99. Brussels: Directorate-General for RegionalPolicies.

Fife Council (1996) Sustainability Policy. Glenrothes:The Planning Service, Fife Council.

Fife Council (1997) First Sustainability Action Plan.Glenrothes: The Planning Service, Fife Council.

Franke, J.F. and Waetzold, F. (1996) Voluntary ini-tiatives and public intervention—the regulation ofeco-auditing. In: Environmental Policy in Europe: Indus-try, Competition and the Policy Process (edited by F.Leveque). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Gouldson, A. and Murphy, J. (1998) Regulatory Reali-ties: The Implementation and Impact of Industrial Environ-mental Regulation. London: Earthscan.

Hajer, M.A. (1996) Ecological modernisation as cul-tural politics. In: Risk, Environment and Modernity:Towards a New Ecology (edited by S. Lash, B.Szerszynski and B. Wynne). London: Sage.

Hanf, K. (1996) Implementing international environ-mental policies. In: Prospects for Environmental Change(edited by A. Blowers and P. Glasbergen). Lon-don: Arnold.

Jachtenfuchs, M. and Huber, M. (1993) Institutionallearning in the European Community: the re-sponse to the greenhouse effect. In: European Inte-gration and Environmental Policy (edited by J.D.Liefferink, P.D. Lowe, A.P.J. Mol). London: Bel-haven Press.

Jackson, T. and Roberts, P. (1997) Greening the Fifeeconomy: ecological modernisation as a pathwayfor local economic development. Journal of Environ-mental Planning and Management, 40: 617–633.

Jacobs, M. (1991) The Green Economy. London: PlutoPress.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. andBelwens, W. (1972) The Limits of Growth: A Report forthe Club of Rome on the Predicament of Mankind. Lon-don: Earth Island Press.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L. and Randers, J.(1992) Beyond the Limits. London: Earthscan.

Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environ-ment of the Netherlands (1988) To Choose orLose—National Environmental Policy Plan. The Hague:MHPPEN.

Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environ-ment of the Netherlands (1994) The Netherlands’National Environmental Policy Plan 2. The Hague:MHPPEN.

Mol, A.P.J. (1995) The Refinement of Production.Utrecht: Van Arkel.

Roberts, P. (1994) Sustainable regional planning.Regional Studies, 28: 781–787.

Roberts, P. (1995) Environmentally Sustainable Business: ALocal and Regional Perspective. London: PaulChapman.

Roberts, P. (1996) European spatial planning and theenvironment: planning for sustainable develop-ment. European Environment, 6: 77–84.

Roberts, P. (1997) Sustainable development strate-gies for regional development in Europe: an eco-logical modernisation approach. Regional Contact,XI: 92–104.

Roberts, P. and Hart, T. (1996) Regional Strategy andPartnership in European Programmes: Experience in FourUK Regions. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Roberts, P. and Chan, R.C.K. (1997) A tale of tworegions: strategic planning for sustainable develop-ment in East and West. International Planning Studies,2: 45–62.

Seamark, D. (1996) European funding and environ-mental appraisal. Town and Country Planning, 65:340–345.



Sunday Times (1997) UK fights EC pollution plan.Sunday Times, 3 August, London.

Town and Country Planning Association (1997) Re-gional Development Agencies: Ensuring Sustainable Re-gional Planning and Development. London: TCPA.

Touche Ross (1994) Sustainability Indicators ResearchProject: Report of Phase 1. Luton: Local GovernmentManagement Board.

Touche Ross (1995) Sustainability Indicators ResearchProject: Consultants’ Report on the Pilot Phase. Luton:Local Government Management Board.

von Weizsaecker, E., Lovins, A.B. and Lovins, L.H.(1997) Factor Four: Doubling Wealth—Halving Re-

source Use: The New Report to the Club of Rome.London: Earthscan.

World Conservation Union, United Nations Envi-ronment Programme, Worldwide Fund for Nature(1991) Caring for the Environment. Gland: WCU.

Weale, A. (1992) The New Politics of Pollution.Manchester: Manchester University Press.

World Bank (1992) Development and the Environment:World Development Report 1992. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
